It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Watch this video about London and share it!!

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


Im shocked that people can't see this for what it really is.

Race card playing to give some credibility to the carnage that's gone on.

The BBC reporter wasn't being racist!




posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by JonoEnglish
reply to post by blupblup
 


Im shocked that people can't see this for what it really is.

Race card playing to give some credibility to the carnage that's gone on.

The BBC reporter wasn't being racist!




I don't believe I mentioned her being racist?

I said she was a bitch and she treated DH badly.... she spoke over him, tried putting words in his mouth, basically accused him of being a rioter/troublemaker in his day.

The guy is old and sick, she should have had more respect, she should lose her job, she was unprofessional, ignorant and rude.



It's getting a lot of attention In the US too

www.theatlanticwire.com...

www.washingtonpost.com... log.html



BBC apologised too:



BBC apologises over Darcus Howe interview

www.independent.co.uk...
edit on 10/8/11 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Oh and the BBC APOLOGISED too.... they knew she was out of order...

Sack her


www.independent.co.uk...



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 





I said she was a bitch and she treated DH badly.... she spoke over him, tried putting words in his mouth, basically accused him of being a rioter/troublemaker in his day.


It was a live interview by a journalist with someone who was supporting the rioters.

The guy is a writer and journalist fighting a cause.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by JonoEnglish
It was a live interview by a journalist with someone who was supporting the rioters.

The guy is a writer and journalist fighting a cause.




What? I didn't hear him support or condone the rioters?

You hear what you want to hear mate


He's looking at the CAUSE.... the reason why, not supporting.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


No it's damage limitation. Nothing more.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by JonoEnglish

Originally posted by ZIPMATT
Why should an tiny child, a three year old, have to witness an execution from it's pushchair ?
I am in tears here, sorry, having a strange old day.


I'm sure the Police were thinking just that at the time.


Well then they shouldnt have been doing it. They need a warrant before raiding people's houses, they need to consult with and bring social services if there are children involved.
So what were they thinking now?
Lets put the public and their kids in the way of it?



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by JonoEnglish
reply to post by blupblup
 


No it's damage limitation. Nothing more.



What?

We're talking about the woman, who talked over, interrupted and tried to put words in the mouth of a guest she was interviewing.... yes?

Then what are you defending?

She was rude, ignorant and unprofessional.

You do realise that the BBC, by law, are supposed to be impartial right?

Even if he did condone or support (which he didn't) the rioters, It's not her job to insult him, cut him of and act like a bitch.




4.4.12

News in whatever form must be treated with due impartiality, giving due weight to events, opinion and main strands of argument. The approach and tone of news stories must always reflect our editorial values, including our commitment to impartiality.


www.bbc.co.uk...
edit on 10/8/11 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
he stated multiple times that while he's not justifying it, people should have seen it coming by paying attention to the signs. that's the only point he's making. he's not trying to give it any justification. but it's ok. it just got more real. 3 asian muslims were killed last night so all of the uk muslims who are on my facebook are flaming mad and this may get ugly.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ZIPMATT
 


So you' be quite happy to send your son or daughter out to apprehend 'that person carrying a gun' with a known history of criminality, violence and I believe previous gun related convictions; without the option to shoot at him if they felt threatened?

That's what you're asking others to do.

We don't know the full facts yet. If he came out the car with his hands on his head, then they shot him, then yeah that is wrong.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


I've seen many rude interviews.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by JonoEnglish
reply to post by blupblup
 


I've seen many rude interviews.




You basically just said "I know you are but what am I?"



Seriously...



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by JonoEnglish
 


You're pre-empting anything stated by IPCC > like the other user asked you > why are you defending a newsperson the bbc had to apologise for?
Why also are you defending summary executions without trial ?



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by JonoEnglish

We don't know the full facts yet. If he came out the car with his hands on his head, then they shot him, then yeah that is wrong.




I missed what you were arguing about with this other member, so you're defending the police MURDERING a man on the street too?? Are you serious?

Oh man... :shk:


You do realise he didn't shoot "his gun" right? (He probably didn't even have one)

There are eye-witness reports that he was shot while lying on the ground.

The police took 5 days to interview the mini-cab driver who was driving the man shot.

Seriously, the fact that you're defending both this and the BBC news interviewer, tells me all I need to know.


Sheesh...


I'll leave you to it while I go bang my head against a brick wall

edit on 10/8/11 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by JonoEnglish
reply to post by ZIPMATT
 

without the option to shoot at him if they felt threatened?



feeling is not fact > this we should learn



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZIPMATT
reply to post by JonoEnglish
 


You're pre-empting anything stated by IPCC > like the other user asked you > why are you defending a newsperson the bbc had to apologise for?
Why also are you defending summary executions without trial ?


Most people are pre-empting anything stated by the IPCC. We don't know what happened.
We know a guy carrying a gun, with a known history got shot in the head and died in the street.

Are you suggesting we un-arm the armed police? Armed police will shoot people.

I don't see that interview as being bad enough to need an apology, considering the others I've seen.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
My Mind, you've beaten me at posting this, but yeah that video is the most important of all things shown on tv in years.


A lucid old man telling what he truly thinks on air, and insulting this stupid corporate bitch for what she truly is!

This a revolution in progress... which side will you choose, the wealthy elite or the poor?


edit on 10/8/11 by Echtelion because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup

Originally posted by JonoEnglish

We don't know the full facts yet. If he came out the car with his hands on his head, then they shot him, then yeah that is wrong.




I missed what you were arguing about with this other member, so you're defending the police MURDERING a man on the street too?? Are you serious?

Oh man... :shk:


You do realise he didn't shoot "his gun" right? (He probably didn't even have one)

There are eye-witness reports that he was shot while lying on the ground.

The police took 5 days to interview the mini-cab driver who was driving the man shot.

Seriously, the fact that you're defending both this and the BBC news interviewer, tells me all I need to know.


Sheesh...


I'll leave you to it while I go bang my head against a brick wall

edit on 10/8/11 by blupblup because: (no reason given)


You are pre-judging this too, from the other side of the argument.

We don't know all the facts.
In my 'opinion' armed police should be allowed to shoot criminals under the right circumstances.

I will give the Police benefit of any doubt until the facts have been made clear.

You call this a murder. Prove it. You can't, you assume based on your own perspective on this situation.

Hey, I'm looking at this with an open mind. I'm open to change based on the facts.

Ok, the interviewer may have come across as rude. Was this intentional? No? Did the interviewer lean in so she could be heard? Was there problem with the guys earpiece? We don't know.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


No, I said I really have seen many rude interviews, and yes on the BBC. It happens, live tv, real people.

It didn't seem rude to me.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by JonoEnglish

Originally posted by ZIPMATT
reply to post by JonoEnglish
 


You're pre-empting anything stated by IPCC > like the other user asked you > why are you defending a newsperson the bbc had to apologise for?
Why also are you defending summary executions without trial ?


Most people are pre-empting anything stated by the IPCC. We don't know what happened.
We know a guy carrying a gun, with a known history got shot in the head and died in the street.

Are you suggesting we un-arm the armed police? Armed police will shoot people.


I don't see that interview as being bad enough to need an apology, considering the others I've seen.


Then they carry no excuse than made up ones. She cut him off because what he was saying was the truth. People hate being treated like they dont matter by police. Mothers with pushchairs wanting to know.

Pavement amnush by CO19 and the flying squad is now a practise of antiquity. I suggest they realise that policing is by consent in this country, and people simply DO NOT consent to this > pavement ambush<

Armed police, yes you need them. Uncorrupt chief officers , yes you need them. Pavement ambush (summary executions) , no you dont need them.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join